DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 23, 2026:
Claims 1-7 and 10-25 are pending. Claims 8-9 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ophir et al. (US 2018/0166680) in view of Katayama et al. (US 2009/0067119) and Sugita et al. (US 2016/0020467).
Regarding Claim 1, Ophir et al. teaches a fast charging lithium ion battery (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a lithium secondary battery) comprising a cathode (i.e. positive electrode) (Para. [0019]) wherein the cathode is made by coating a slurry comprising electrode active material on a current collector (Para. [0047]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive electrode active material) wherein the cathode material comprises spinel-based and/or layered structured cathode material of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxides] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (i.e. comprising at least one composite oxide, the composite oxide comprising lithium and a metal selected from cobalt, manganese, nickel or a combination thereof) and comprising an olivine-based structure of LiFePO4 (i.e. a compound of Chemical formula 1 of the instant claim wherein a1 = 1, x1 = 0) (Para. [0022]) wherein 5-10 wt% of the cathode material comprises the olivine-based structure (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a mixing ratio of the positive electrode active material and the compound of Chemical Formula 1 is 95:5 to 90:10, and thus, overlapping with the claimed weight ratio of 9:1 to 5:5), the cell of the lithium battery further comprising an anode (i.e. negative electrode) comprising anode active material particles (i.e. comprising a negative electrode active material) , and a separator comprising a polyolefin (Para. [0047]) (i.e. a first functional layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the first functional layer comprises polyolefin particles).
Ophir et al. does not teach the polyolefin particles are plate-like polyolefin particles having an average diameter of 1 to 8 micrometers, wherein a ratio of a major axis length to a minor axis length of the plate-like polyolefin particles is 1.1 to 4.5 and wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises a flame-retardant or the positive electrode has a stacked structure comprising the electrode active material layer and a second functional layer comprising a flame retardant.
However, Katayama et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0101]) comprising a positive electrode containing (i.e. comprising) a positive active material (i.e. positive electrode active material) (Para. [0102]), a first separator layer (Para. [0023]) (i.e. a first functional layer) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Para. [0099]) , wherein the first separator layer includes flakes (Para. [0057]) (i.e. plate-like particles) such as filler (Para. [0045], [0088]) which may be polypropylene (Para. [0050], [0052]) (i.e. plate-like polyolefin particles) wherein the average particle diameter of the flakes is 0.1 micrometer or larger and 15 micrometers or smaller (Para. [0060]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of 1 micrometer to 8 micrometers), wherein an average ratio length in the long axis direction/length in the short axis direction of the flat plate surface of the particles is approximate to 1, such as not more than 3 (Para. [0058]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed ratio of a major axis length to a minor axis length of the plate-like polyolefin particle is 1.1 to 4.5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyolefin particles of Ophir et al. and the positive electrode active material layer of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the flakes (i.e. plate-like polyolefin particles as claimed) in the positive electrode active material layer, as the flakes having such a structure would effectively prevent the occurrence of an internal short-circuit caused by lithium dendrite deposited on the electrode surface or a protrusion of an active material on the electrode surface (Para. [0061]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Ophir et al. does not teach wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises an organic flame-retardant or the positive electrode has a stacked structure comprising the electrode active material layer and a second functional layer comprising an organic flame retardant, and the organic flame-retardant excludes a polymer and comprises a phosphorus-based flame retardant, a halogen-based flame retardant, a nitrogen-based flame retardant or a combination thereof.
However, Sugita et al. teaches a secondary battery (Para. [0012]) comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) containing a reaction inhibitor (Para. [0014]) wherein the reaction inhibitor is a phosphate ester compound, melamine pyrophosphate, melamine sulfate, melamine cyanurate or melamine borate wherein the reaction inhibitor may be a flame retardant agent (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a second functional layer comprising an organic flame retardant, and the organic flame-retardant excludes a polymer and comprises a phosphorus-based flame retardant, a nitrogen-based flame retardant or a combination thereof) and comprises carboxymethyl cellulose (Para. [0020]) (i.e. and an aqueous binder, wherein the aqueous binder comprises a cellulose-based compound).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) as taught by Sugita et al., as such a layer suppresses the reaction between the positive electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution and suppresses the deterioration of input-output characteristics (Para. [0023]) and enhances bindability (Para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches a cathode (i.e. positive electrode) (Para. [0019]) wherein the cathode is made by coating a slurry comprising electrode active material on a current collector (Para. [0047]) (i.e. the positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer and a positive electrode current collector).
Ophir et al. does not teach the positive electrode has a stacked structure comprising the positive electrode active material layer and the second functional layer.
However, Sugita et al. teaches a secondary battery (Para. [0012]) comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) containing a reaction inhibitor (Para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) having a stacked structure as taught by Sugita et al., as such a layer suppresses the reaction between the positive electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution and suppresses the deterioration of input-output characteristics (Para. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) contains a positive electrode active material (Para. [0015]) wherein the positive electrode active material includes LiFePO4 (Para. [0018]) (i.e. the second functional layer further comprises the compound of Chemical Formula 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) having the compound of Chemical Formula 1 as taught by Sugita et al., as such a layer suppresses the reaction between the positive electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution and suppresses the deterioration of input-output characteristics (Para. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches cathode material may be LiCoO-2 (Para. [0022]) (i.e. the composite oxide is represented by LiaA1-bXbD2 -wherein a = 1, b = 0, A is Co and D is O).
Regarding Claim 6, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the lithium battery further comprising an anode (i.e. negative electrode) comprising anode active material particles (i.e. comprising a negative electrode active material layer) , and a separator comprising a polyolefin (Para. [0047]) (i.e. the first functional layer is present on the negative electrode active material layer).
Regarding Claim 7, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. does not explicitly teach the first functional layer is present on a separator.
However, Katayama et al. further teaches the first separator layer (i.e. first functional layer) being formed on a porous base (Para, [0016]) (i.e. the lithium battery further includes a separator, and the first functional layer is present on the separator).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium battery of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the porous base, as using an independent porous base improves handleability (Para. [0070]).
11. Regarding Claim 10, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches the reaction inhibitor is a phosphate ester compound, melamine pyrophosphate, melamine sulfate, melamine cyanurate or melamine borate wherein the reaction inhibitor may be a flame retardant agent (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a nitrogen-based flame retardant). Since the instant claim is being interpreted as defining the phosphorus-based flame retardant without requiring the presence of the phosphorus-based flame retardant, the presence of melamine (i.e. a nitrogen-based flame retardant) meets the limitations of claim 10. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 11, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches the reaction inhibitor is a phosphate ester compound, melamine pyrophosphate, melamine sulfate, melamine cyanurate or melamine borate wherein the reaction inhibitor may be a flame retardant agent (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a nitrogen-based flame retardant). Since the instant claim is being interpreted as defining the halogen-based flame retardant without requiring the presence of the halogen-based flame retardant, the presence of melamine (i.e. a nitrogen-based flame retardant) meets the limitations of claim 11. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 12, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches the reaction inhibitor is a melamine pyrophosphate, melamine sulfate, melamine cyanurate or melamine borate wherein the reaction inhibitor may be a flame retardant agent (Para. [0021]) (i.e. the nitrogen-based flame retardant melamine, melamine phosphate, melamine cyanurate). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 13, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Katayama et al. further teaches the average particle diameter of the flakes is 0.1 micrometer or larger and 15 micrometers or smaller (Para. [0060]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of 2 micrometer to 6 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Katayama et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 14, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Katayama et al. further teaches an average ratio length in the long axis direction/length in the short axis direction of the flat plate surface of the particles is approximate to 1, such as not more than 3 (Para. [0058]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed ratio of a major axis length to a minor axis length of the plate-like polyolefin particle is 1.2 to 3.5). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Katayama et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 15, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Katayama et al. further teaches the average particle diameter of the flakes is 0.1 micrometer or larger and 15 micrometers or smaller (Para. [0060]) and the aspect ratio of the flakes is preferably not less than 10 and not more than 50 (Para. [0080]) and thus, the thickness may range from 0.002 micrometer to 1.5 micrometers (as average diameter/thickness = aspect ratio of a flake and 0.1-15/thickness=10-50; overlapping with the claimed range of a thickness of the plate-like polyolefin particle is 0.2 micrometers to 4 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Katayama et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 18, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) between the second mixture layer and the current collector (Fig. 1, #20) (i.e. the second functional layer is present between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 19, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) between the second mixture layer and the current collector (Fig. 1, #20) (i.e. the second functional layer is present on the positive electrode active material layer). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 20, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) between the second mixture layer and the current collector (Fig. 1, #20) (i.e. the second functional layer is present between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector, and is present on the positive electrode active material layer). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 21, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 3 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the cathode material includes LiFePO4 (i.e. the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 in the positive electrode active material layer).
Sugita et al. further teaches the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) contains a positive electrode active material (Para. [0015]) wherein the positive electrode active material includes LiFePO4 (Para. [0018]) (i.e. is the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 in the second functional layer). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 22, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. does not teach a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is from 60 micrometers to 70 micrometers.
However, Sugita et al. further teaches the second mixture layer (i.e. the positive electrode active material layer) has a thickness of 60 micrometers (Para. [0054]) (i.e. a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is from 60 micrometers to 70 micrometers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active martial of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the thickness of 60 micrometers as taught by Sugita et al., as such a layer would provide excellent input-output characteristics (Para. [0067]).
Regarding Claim 23, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. does not teach a second functional layer.
However, Sugita et al. the first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) comprising a thickness of 15 micrometers (Para. [0054], Example 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active martial of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the thickness as taught by Sugita et al., as such a layer would provide excellent input-output characteristics (Para. [0067]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 24, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. does not teach a ratio of a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer to a thickness of the second functional layer is from 30:1 to 10:1.
However, Sugita et al. further teaches a value obtained by dividing the thickness of the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) by the sum of the layer thickness of the first mixture layer and the layer thickness of the second mixture layer is preferably less than 0.5 (Para. [0024]) (i.e. a ratio of a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer to a thickness of the second functional layer is greater than 1:1, overlapping with the claimed range of from 30:1 to 10:1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active martial of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the ratio of thicknesses as taught by Sugita et al., as such layers would provide excellent input-output characteristics (Para. [0067]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 25, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material layer has from 0.001 wt% to 30 wt% of the flame retardant based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer.
However, Sugita et al. teaches the second mixture layer (i.e. positive electrode active material layer) contains 1% or less of reaction inhibitor based on the total amount of the positive electrode active material in the second mixture layer (Para. [0025], [0041]) (i.e. at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of from 0.001 wt% to 30 wt % of the flame retardant based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer, as such a range would be equivalent to 0.92 wt% or less based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first and second mixture layers wherein the second mixture layer (i.e. positive electrode active material layer) contains 1% or less of reaction inhibitor based on the total amount of the positive electrode active material in the second mixture layer as taught by Sugita et al, as such a positive electrode structure provides for suppression of the reaction between positive electrode active material and electrolyte, providing excellent input-output characteristics (Para. [0067]).
Claims 5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ophir et al. (US 2018/0166680) in view of Katayama et al. (US 2009/0067119) and Sugita et al. (US 2016/0020467) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (KR20180049986A). The U.S. version of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0075955A) is used as the English translation and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 5, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the cathode material comprises spinel-based and/or layered structured cathode material of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxides] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (Para. [0022]).
Ophir et al. does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material comprises at least one of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 or LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2.
However, Jeon et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising both LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 (Para. [0095]).
The substitution of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxide] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a material functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 16, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the cathode material comprises spinel-based and/or layered structured cathode material of at least one of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxides] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (Para. [0022]) (i.e. two composite oxides).
Ophir et al. does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material comprises two composite oxides in a weight ratio of 80:20
However, Jeon et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising both LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 (Para. [0095]).
The substitution of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxide] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a material functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 17, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al., Sugita et al. and Jeon et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 5 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the cathode material comprises spinel-based and/or layered structured cathode material of at least one of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxides] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (Para. [0022]) (i.e. two composite oxides).
Ophir et al. does not explicitly teach a weight ratio of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 is 80:20
However, Jeon et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising both LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 (Para. [0095]).
The substitution of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxide] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a material functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Sugita teaches binders for a second mixed layer need to be fluorine-containing polymers or elastomer polymers and thus fails to disclose or suggestion a second functional layer including an aqueous binder.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The listed examples of the fluorine-containing and elastomer polymer binders taught in Sugita are not a teaching away from an aqueous binder. In order to teach away, the reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As Sugita et al. explicitly teaches using carboxymethyl cellulose together with binder (Para. [0020]) in each of the first and second mixture layer (Para. [0015-0016]), Sugita et al. teaches the positive electrode active material layer comprises an aqueous binder and the second functional layer comprising an aqueous binder. As carboxymethyl cellulose is present, it would be capable of functioning as an aqueous binder. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Katayama, Ophir and Jeon do not teach a functional layer comprising a flame retardant separately from the cathode active material later layer.
These references are not relied upon for teaching the flame retardant separately from the cathode active material layer. Sugita et al. is relied upon for this teaching as explained in the rejection to claim 1 above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Ophir does not teach a binder in the sectional functional layer. Applicant’s arguments are moot as the new prior art rejection necessitated by the amendment does not rely on Ophir for the teaching of the aqueous binder in the second functional layer.
Applicant argues the LiFePO4 in Ophir is different from the claimed flame retardant and safety architecture. Ophir is not relied upon for teaching the flame retardant as explained above. It is unclear which “safety architecture” claimed Applicant is referring to. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights